If you add up all the money of all the billionaires in the United States, you’d get something like $8.2 trillion. If you look at what the government intends to spend this year, it’ll be about $7.4 trillion.
First, you have to recognize that "economic growth " is the only way out without a disaster. Trump at least gives that lip service but still does too many things that are counter productive like excessive and unpredictable tariffs. He needs his administration to get serious about encouraging real growth. Second, while you can't "cut your way" out of this mess cuts are still a very essential component of the solution. Get the DOGE team effort going again working WITH department heads and look for real cuts and waste elimination without grandstanding, just quietly get real savings identified and enacted. Recognize that tariffs are a tax in most cases and limit them to areas that are needed to put the US on a level playing field or that have national security implications like not being dependent on Communist China for antibiotics or computer chips.
Cut everything including the Trump tariffs. 2% REDUCTION on all governemnt payouts (maybe one carve out for salaries to keep them constant)- If $1 Billion is committed for 2027, govt now gives $980 Million, department or recipient has to make the new amount work. Next, raise corporate and federal income tax by 1 basis point: If I am in the 20% tax bracket, I now pay 21%. Austerity is not fun but needs to be a shared sacrifice. Finally, elect someone who has the ability to govern and lead instead of someone who changes policies in the middle of the night due to imagined slights.
Find the fraud and cut it, all the while jailing those that enrinched themselves. This would at least chip the tip of the iceburg and send a clear message on consequences. Too bad there are no consequences for grift, greed and theft.
Taking the money out of the give-a-ways to non citizens would go a long way too, not only in saving a few bucks, but prove the so called leaders of this nation are backing actual American citizens. It's way past time to stop coddling foreigners and start taking care of our own. Until we get actual, real Patriotic America loving Americans taking over the reins, we're doomed to the abyss the current 'leaders' are dragging us into.
What will we cut? Politically, it is difficult, if not impossible to cut major programs. However, we can reduce the spending on those programs via efforts to identify the billions being wasted. That has long been dismissed as "too hard" or 'not enough to go after' but those excuses have been blown away by the efforts of DOGE, Nick Shirley and the Dept of the Treasury - but there is obviously more to do. We can stop making excuse and demand accountability, and it starts with those we elect to Congress. They share a huge part of the responsibility, and those that have been part of it (looking at the 2 Senators from Georgia, for example) should be incentivized to do the right thing or return to private life. We cannot have a situation where politicians are claiming that immigration is essential to the economy AND at the same time be supporting a vast majority of immigrants with welfare and Medicaid and all the rest of the programs. We also need to do a much better job of reviewing the thousands of NGOs that have no other funding source but Government and then do far to little with the funds they are given. There are plenty of places to cut once we shine some light on them. We can also stop the unnecessarily lavish spending on infrastructure projects ($8B for a new tunnel across to NYC? Gavin Newsome's train to nowhere?) and go back to building things that work.
With DOGE having applied a wrecking ball to the federal government, after which some of those cuts had to be restored, and with we-spend-too-much Republicans now in complete control of that government, how is there "obviously more to do" in terms of spending. There may well be but if so, it would seem far from obvious.
SS and Medicare are two of the biggest items in the budget. SS is a pure Ponzi scheme and wastes huge amounts of taxpayer money. It should be eliminated! Medicare is a big cause for why healthcare costs so much. We need to drop Medicare as well. Government run programs are built with waste and fraud and the free market can do better if allowed to. But, bc power is derived from how much money a politician controls, and both are sacred Cows, they cannot be touched. If you think the Democrats and Socialists want government health care bc they are thinking of you, you are sadly mistaken. It’s all about power! They do not care one iota about you or your health. Just look what’s becoming Canada’s fix for rising healthcare costs and dwindling healthcare resources . . . Euthanasia! I don’t think they care for you at all.
A Ponzi scheme is mathematically guaranteed to collapse completely once new recruitment stops or demands for withdrawals exceed incoming cash. Social Security is designed as a perpetual, intergenerational transfer mechanism, with one generation funding the retirement cost of the previous one. If revenue falls short, the government can adjust tax rates, raise the taxable wage base, or alter benefit formulas through legislative action to restore solvency. This distinguishes it from a Ponzi scheme.
It is a Ponzi scheme. It is on the verge of collapse. The only reason it still exists is government force, requiring the people to participate. It is theft.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where money from new participants pays "returns" to earlier investors."
Aside from it not being technically "fraudulent" how is SS any different? It pays out on the monies received from those currently working. It started paying out before any money was actually received. They have to constantly change the rules to keep it alive!
To begin with, it not being fraudulent is a pretty significant distinction. If Ponzi schemes could actually work, they would be legal. The fact that eventually, inevitably, somebody gets (1) deceived and (2) ripped off is why they are instead illegal.
With Social Security having been enacted by our elected representatives, We the People knowingly undertook a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to accomplish the socially valued purpose of ensuring that America's old people can age with a certain level of dignity and economic security. Contrary to what happens with a Ponzi scheme, Social Security operates exactly as was intended, and we all benefit exactly as promised.
The rule changes "to keep it alive" is what is done with government programs to ensure that they are accomplishing their intended purpose to the greatest extent possible.
So, if it was perpetual why do they have to “Save” it periodically? Yes the Bernie Madoff Ponzi type schemes do collapse as you say, but only bc there is no investment to actually pay dividends and when people realize that it collapses. So, where is the investments in SS? The government is not allowed to invest. They can only take! Why do they have to make so many changes to cut payouts or delay them? Couldn’t Madoff had done that too? Surely he could, but that would have exposed it sooner, just like SS now. The main dfference is we have no choice! That why it stays on life support. Tell me, if you had put 12-13% of your income from the time you started working into the Stock Market, how much would you have today? Most everyone would be millionaires in their 50’s. The only way SS stays alive is we pour more of our hard earned money in it and it gives us less back. Those are numbers that are factual and real!
Especially for the wealthiest country on earth, ensuring that our elderly can age with a certain level of dignity and economic security is a worthy social goal. Accomplishing worthy social goals is one of the reasons we have this thing called government. Social Security accomplishes this worthy social goal in a rather ingenious way, basically with the generation that is working supplementing the retirement of the previous generation, the next doing the same for them and so on.
That said, I am completely open to any alternative you might suggest, provided that it enables all of our elderly to age with the same level of dignity and economic security as they can with Social Security.
Social Security is unconstitutional. It is a Ponzi scheme. It is theft. It is welfare. And the last time I looked at the Constitution, there was no authority granted to the federal government to ensure that the elderly can age with dignity.
I would be open to the argument that this was something to be undertaken by individual state governments. I would not be open to the richest nation on earth not taking care of its elderly.
Here's a clue, Glen. Socialism has barely been a blip on the political radar for most our our lifetimes. Income disparity reaches an unprecedented level and social mobility stagnates and what do you know? Younger Americans are now increasingly open to it.
In the long run, your "let them eat cake" attitude constitutes a much bigger danger to the Constitution than does a liberal reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause. History has shown that the alternative to a government that fails to meet the reasonable needs of its people is revolution.
The federal government was not founded to "meet the reasonable needs of its people". The federal government was founded to guarantee its citizens the rights of Englishmen, the inalienable rights provided to us by God.
A proper reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause is its application to establish West Point as an educational conduit for our military. But you would read the Necessary and Proper Clause as independent of any relationship to an enumerated power. You would read the Necessary and Proper Clause to permit the federal government to do whatever it thinks necessary and proper. In other words, you would read the Necessary and Proper Clause to permit the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants to do.
Our federal Constitution is incompatible with socialism. It does not permit it. It also does not permit taxing some to give to others. That is what charity is for. That is what families and friends are for. It is not a function of government at any level.
Given all the hue and cry from Republicans about waste and fraud in government, with Republicans now in complete control of the federal government, and in particular after the DOGE cuts (some of which had to be restored), the notion that there is anything left to cut seems doubtful. Rather, it would seem that we as a nation are getting stuff from the federal government that the American people value, but for which the American people are simply not paying. It really is that simple.
So why don't we at least start paying for more of it? Not just billionaires or trillionaires. All of us. And I'm not talking about some draconian tax increase. Just repeal the last tax cut. That is, let us simply return to paying taxes at the levels that we used to, it perhaps now being pretty apparent that we needed that lost revenue all along.
There is no such thing as "complete control of the federal government" as we see every four years. Things take time to change, and even more time when the bureaucrats in the system want to slow them down. Add to that the folks on Congressional staffs that stuff the 3,000 page Omnibus bills with provisions that are never read, and you have a recipe for long, drawn out implementations of everything.
Bypassing the legislative process (illegally, I might add), Musk's people went anywhere and everywhere they wanted, firing bureaucrats left and right. So you can't blame the spending part of this fiscal year's projected $1.9 trillion deficit on them, or on Congress.
You can, however, blame this Republican Congress for cutting revenue, using budget reconciliation to bypass any Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Given DOGE (on the spending side) and budget reconciliation to cut taxes (on the revenue side), Republicans completely own our current budget deficit.
There was nothing "illegal" about DOGE. Bureaucrats work for the President. Ergo, the President can fire them. The problem remains spending--not tax cuts--and both parties are responsible, the Democrats more so than the Republicans.
It would take at least a 26 percent reduction in federal spending in order to balance the budget. Now, via DOGE, "draining the swamp" of fraud and corruption, or whatever, if you think you can trim ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR dollars being spent, then for a nation nearing $40 trillion dollars in debt, reducing revenue might make sense.
If, on the other hand, you cannot somehow manage to reduce federal spending by 26 percent, reducing revenue with a tax cut was a knowing and deliberate decision to drive us further into debt. Democrats are worse than Republicans . . . . Whatever. Given (1) the magnitude of our debt and (2) how unhinged it would be to imagine it politically feasible to cut federal spending by 26 percent, a tax cut of any kind would have been damned irresponsible. That it mostly benefitted people who can afford to pay taxes is even worse.
First, I have suggested cutting federal government spending by 67% (or more). It can and should be done. Because all federal transfer payments are unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral. Second, you seem to believe that the federal government has first dibs on Americans' money. Third, you seem to believe that the federal government needs money more than do American citizens. I submit that is far past the time when government did with less, and Americans keep more of their own hard earned money. Finally, your dig at people who pay taxes is inexcusable. It is inexcusable because the tax plan enacted (it was not a cut, it was keeping in place the tax rates) benefitted ALL taxpayers across the board. The very few tax cuts involved benefitted only the working class such as servers, construction workers, and police, as well as the elderly. It is also inexcusable because it evidences the sin of envy, the very cornerstone of Marxism. You seem to believe that successful people should have a larger portion of their income seized, because they "can afford" it. That is immoral.
The Democrats when they were in control of Congress used the reconciliation process as well, so that doesn’t really makecthe point you are intending. Insisting that the DOGE process was illegal is also a very weak argument, as they brought the issues to the surface for the appropriate actions by the departments. Early on in the process the courts were involved and let the process continue. Do you really want to defend the multiple Continuing Resolutions orchestrated byboth parties over the past 2 decades? Do you really think it is politically or fiscally responsible to make massive changes to budget line items from one Congress to another? tThis is an issue that defies partisanship and goes to the central question of what does the Constitution say with regard to what is or is not an appropriate use of federal funds? And is running huge deficits each year in the national interest? Until we can get all members of Congress to debate and settle these questions, the current state of affairs will continue.
I think you miss my point. Democrats have been no more fiscally responsible than Republicans over the last 50 or so years. However, over most of the last 50 years, our debt was not approaching $40 trillion, interest payments on the debt did not exceed the defense budget and the cost of our borrowing was not beginning to inch higher.
My point is that with respect to our most recent departure from fiscal sanity, Republicans did that all on their own, knowing full well (after DOGE) that there was no way of cutting enough spending to offset their tax cuts. It was just a straight up raid on the treasury of a nation headed toward an inevitable fiscal reckoning.
I agree with your first paragraph. The debt has exploded in the last two decades, but the explosion in the first 5 years of this decade did the most damage, in part because the way the Congress sets 'baseline' spending for the next budget based on the ones before.. The belief that tax cuts always lead to less revenue is not born out by the facts over the long run, ad, according to the FED, tax revenue increased 2025. It's oviously too soon to see 2026, and it may in fact decrease a bit, but over the long haul revenue has increased as the economy has grown. see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA/
I have a better idea. How about we return to Constitutional government? You may have read about it in books. It was how the federal government operated prior to The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The Great Society, and Obamacare. Then we would not have to keep taxing the American people to death, we could eliminate our debt, we could eradicate socialism, and we would be operating within our Constitutional parameters.
Call it a return to constitutional government or whatever you want. However, if Republicans have proven incapable of cutting spending to the point of balancing the budget, even when completely in control of the federal government, more talk about cutting our way to a balanced budget is mere intellectual masturbation: it feels good ideologically, but it's never going to produce anything.
Trump had to clean up Obama's mess. And now he is having to clean up Biden's mess. That is not Republicans screwing up. That is Republicans fixing what Democrats broke.
That might be true in many areas, but not with regard to the federal budget.
The average budget deficit under Obama was $826 billion. Trump cleaned up that mess by more than doubling it to an average of $1.93 trillion.
Biden brought the annual average down to $1.67 trillion. Trump has cleaned that up to the tune of $1.78 trillion last year, with a $2.1 trillion deficit projected for FY 2026.
When a debt of 40 trillion is headed four 41 who notices where a billion here or a billion there goes, nobody is watching . We need free enterprise and capitalism not crony capitalism let the markets work fair trade with other nations and cut the government spending on pet projects along with spending by government federal state and local it’s gonna hurt but a little pain now is better than a death wish later
Erick, are you engaging in ragebaiting? It this a test?
There are of late a few voices here that I am frankly surprised would pay the privilege of humping Trump's leg or making just stupid hyperbole arguments to own someone.
Not a problem for me if they want to support your ministry and show, I just won't engage with them. I am just wondering if this is a quirky reality or a/b testing.
Umm, how is facing our current economic danger ragebaiting? Not sure I understand your comment. Would you be willing to help me understand your point?
From a different perspective, America lost its willingness to personally sacrifice to preserve our way of life when needed. WWII, for instance, came with rationing of particulars needed to supply the effort to defeat the Nazis and Japanese. Most Americans understood, lived with it, found ways to personally address their needs such as Victory Gardens. The war cost a lot, Americans supported the troops with personal sacrifices such as sugar and rubber as well as with tax dollars.
After that, Korea kind of shifted Americans' attitude - wasn't the same clear and present danger to the planet. Cold War proponents put it forth as "prevention" of spread of Communism. Then came Vietnam and the maelstrom of philosophies, opinions, politics and anti-war activities we all faced at a societal level.
IMO, what America did *not* do after WWII was ask Americans to sacrifice luxuries (and yes, sugar, while a staple, is a luxury for cooking) and comfort in the pursuit of a greater good (well, greater good in some minds anyway). America spent money, raised/lowered taxes, drafted young men, but Americans were not personally supportive of these efforts, nor were the material issues of WWII called for. National debt climbed, Americans just figured debt was the NIMBY answer - don't specifically ask me to do anything about it, just keep all that stuff out of my life.
Welfare emerged, has statistically proven devastating to those it was supposed to rescue, but would we ever consider reducing that? Not any more! Those are voters you're talking about. In our wealthy arrogance, we ignore the cost, figure we'll "grow our way out of it" and continue to create entitlement programs without considering whether, like a household economy, one thing may cost getting another thing, but the bucket only has this much water in it. America has lost resiliency, IMO. Individual economies realize we can't have it all...but at macroscopic gov't level, that reality gets lost in the millions and billions of dollar "details"...that add up to trillions.
So, as Erick asks, what will America forego to re-balance the budget? Answer comes back from Washington DC and state capitols - NOTHING, just spend away.
I don't want to let politicians off the hook, but the only viable path to make real cuts is to use the blueprint from military base closures in the 90s. We need a BRAC-style commission to cut the deficit. Only an independent commission with independent authority will have the capability to make serious cuts. Congress never will. They need a villain they can point to and scream at while the villain saves our country. It's not a great solution, but Congress is simply never going to fix it. They're more scared of losing re-election than saddling generations with impossible debt.
Great idea Allen. The morons yelling about simply cutting spending are just noise and gimmicks. Clearly if we were able to do that our debt wouldn't have gotten bad. If any R in congress had actually advocated for and held the line in the last budget process about making serious cuts to spending then Trump would have relentlessly called them out on camera, and in social media / recruited primary challengers and made sure that they were primaried out.
I like the idea of taking this out of the hand of congress directly, but leaving it there indirectly through their ability to appoint people on the commission. Could give them enough cover to actually get something done.
Another gimmick. JUST CUT SPENDING! And the problem is not just Congress. It is also the people. Voters want "free stuff". They want their Social Security, Medicare, student loans, Section 8 housing, etc. And they do not want to pay for anything. They want someone else to pay. Well, there is no one else. And there is no such thing as "free stuff"!
It would not constitute a drop in the ocean if you confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires. And there is nothing patriotic about allowing government to confiscate your money to give to someone else.
That’s because they ate most of the tariffs, costing them the profits margins needed to pay employees and invest in new product development. Trump owes these companies a lot more than just the amounts of the tariffs to make them whole.
Now that is a lie. Prices are not rising for consumers if retailers are eating the tariffs. You yourself wrote that your company 1) passed on the costs of the tariffs; and, 2) kept your tariff refunds. So you are a liar and a thief. MOREOVER, if you are so concerned about the budget, why do you not support the tariffs as a way to close the deficit? You cannot have it both ways. Because you are not a serious person.
Tariffs as a way to close the deficit would be stupid. Besides being regressive in their ultimate effect, they distort the free market.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to tariffs for protectionist reasons where appropriate. However, for the purpose of raising revenue, they were abandoned more than a century ago for a reason.
It’s a good thing you went into defending criminals, Glen, because you don’t know squat about business. We ate some of the tariffs and we passed some of them on — because we had to do so to stay in business. Interesting to see that you support taxing Americans with tariffs. I thought you were for cutting spending.
That is not what your previous posts claimed. Liar. And I know quite a bit about business. And I never said I supported tariffs, not once. Try reading. And I am for cutting spending. Especially since you Bush Republicans already spent so much.
In 1933, the federal government took gold coins out of circulation, taking the US off the gold standard domestically.
In 1965, the federal government took silver coins out of circulation and replaced them with cupronickel.
In 1971, the federal government took the US off the international gold standard.
The result was the ability to produce "fiat" currency based on nothing but trust in the government and market forces. Starting in the 1970's, this led to massive inflation.
In 1983, the federal government took copper pennies out of circulation and replaced them with zinc.
From 1940 to 1969, the price of a Milky Way candy bar remained constant at 5 cents (but they started getting smaller).
In 1976, I remember a Milky Way costing 19 cents at the corner gas station. By 1990, it had shot up to 45 cents.... today, it's $2.00
This is an increase of 2,800% over this 86-year timeframe.
If wages had kept up with inflation and productivity, everyone should be getting paid about 45% more than what they are now.
Every year, we pay more and get less.
Is it any wonder why Millennials/Gen-Z can't afford anything and are so pissed? Hell, Gen-X barely got any left-over scraps.
How does a civilization collapse?
1) Economy goes to crap... we've got that.
2) Government becomes corrupt and self-serving... we've got that.
3) Foreigners enter the country in large numbers, don't assimilate and start diluting the established culture... we've got that.
4) The climate stops cooperating.... This is the wildcard. As long as the lights turn on, there's cold beer in the refrigerator and a ball game on TV, most people will cope. But the moment food production collapses.... look out. It will all go to pot faster than most can imagine..
It’s been the same pattern going back to antiquity.... the Bronze Age Collapse, Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Hittites, Canaanites, Mycenaean, Babylon, Persia, Sumerians, Egypt, Han Dynasty China, Ming Dynasty China, Greece, Carthage, Rome, Olmec, Maya, Kuhmer, Spain, France, Qing Dynasty China, Japan, Ottoman, etc. No one is immune.
So why does it keep happening?
The main reason is actually pretty simple.
The warning signs are always visible, yet usually ignored by those in power. Every civilization had people inside it who saw what was happening, and were sounding the alarm, but the people in power ignored those warnings. They always put their own interests ahead of the good of the civilization.
They become victims of something known as “Normalcy Bias”….. Meaning, they are used to living their lives a certain way, and believe it will always be that way. The thought of their lifestyle suddenly changing is unthinkable; it’s not on the radar for the vast majority of the people.
You've hit a nerve with this one, Erick, I think. Everyone has suggestions on what we need to cut, but unfortunately, no one in DC will do any of it. It's like the idea that all the elected officials in DC are worthless and need to be tossed out....except my guy. Just like they rallied around repealing the ACA for a decade, and then didn't, they will talk a good game about cutting things...and then won't.
So, here's my question to you, Erick, and I'd really like to know a thoughtful, detailed answer; What happens to America if our politicians vapor lock and cut absolutely zero, ever and we just keep rolling along as we are?
I don't mean what happens according to all the internet keyboard warriors and their ideas. I mean, you talk to these people, and their people, and the people who feed them ideas all the time. What do the intelligencia think actually happens?
I, personally would kick every single one of them out, even the few who might do what is right, and start over. Because they all have the taint of do nothing but benefit themselves.
I think our first step in the right direction would be to repeal the 17th amendment. Direct election of senators unbalanced the structure of our country as it was envisioned by the Founders. That weakened the power of the semi-sovereign states.
It would be really nice to tell the Federal Reserve Bank to get bent and wipe out the debt with stroke of a pen... of course, that would cause mass chaos...
If you're familiar with Argentina's history, you can see what would happen because they've done that many times. It's never worked and, as you point out, has been quite destructive to their country.
Yep... I know all about what Argentina has bene through over the last 130 years. It is a nice fantasy to tell the FED to pound sand.... but not practical, I know.
In 1940, Argentina's navy was 8th-most powerful in the world.... imagine that.
Nah, just seeing if you’d bite, Glen. And you did. I am the only labor on my farm, plus a few hunt club members. But I do sort of picture you still having a few slaves on the old Virginia plantation.
I get it. I design and build electric substations and all our construction contractors have imported workers. The Guatemalans and Hondurans are great workers, but I believe most of them are on work visa programs. If we could get rid of the bad hombres but let the good guys stay and contribute. Wishful thinking, I know.
First, you have to recognize that "economic growth " is the only way out without a disaster. Trump at least gives that lip service but still does too many things that are counter productive like excessive and unpredictable tariffs. He needs his administration to get serious about encouraging real growth. Second, while you can't "cut your way" out of this mess cuts are still a very essential component of the solution. Get the DOGE team effort going again working WITH department heads and look for real cuts and waste elimination without grandstanding, just quietly get real savings identified and enacted. Recognize that tariffs are a tax in most cases and limit them to areas that are needed to put the US on a level playing field or that have national security implications like not being dependent on Communist China for antibiotics or computer chips.
Cut everything including the Trump tariffs. 2% REDUCTION on all governemnt payouts (maybe one carve out for salaries to keep them constant)- If $1 Billion is committed for 2027, govt now gives $980 Million, department or recipient has to make the new amount work. Next, raise corporate and federal income tax by 1 basis point: If I am in the 20% tax bracket, I now pay 21%. Austerity is not fun but needs to be a shared sacrifice. Finally, elect someone who has the ability to govern and lead instead of someone who changes policies in the middle of the night due to imagined slights.
One of the longest bipartisan efforts in Congressional history has been the effort to outspend the other party.
Find the fraud and cut it, all the while jailing those that enrinched themselves. This would at least chip the tip of the iceburg and send a clear message on consequences. Too bad there are no consequences for grift, greed and theft.
Taking the money out of the give-a-ways to non citizens would go a long way too, not only in saving a few bucks, but prove the so called leaders of this nation are backing actual American citizens. It's way past time to stop coddling foreigners and start taking care of our own. Until we get actual, real Patriotic America loving Americans taking over the reins, we're doomed to the abyss the current 'leaders' are dragging us into.
Jesus can't get here soon enough...
What will we cut? Politically, it is difficult, if not impossible to cut major programs. However, we can reduce the spending on those programs via efforts to identify the billions being wasted. That has long been dismissed as "too hard" or 'not enough to go after' but those excuses have been blown away by the efforts of DOGE, Nick Shirley and the Dept of the Treasury - but there is obviously more to do. We can stop making excuse and demand accountability, and it starts with those we elect to Congress. They share a huge part of the responsibility, and those that have been part of it (looking at the 2 Senators from Georgia, for example) should be incentivized to do the right thing or return to private life. We cannot have a situation where politicians are claiming that immigration is essential to the economy AND at the same time be supporting a vast majority of immigrants with welfare and Medicaid and all the rest of the programs. We also need to do a much better job of reviewing the thousands of NGOs that have no other funding source but Government and then do far to little with the funds they are given. There are plenty of places to cut once we shine some light on them. We can also stop the unnecessarily lavish spending on infrastructure projects ($8B for a new tunnel across to NYC? Gavin Newsome's train to nowhere?) and go back to building things that work.
With DOGE having applied a wrecking ball to the federal government, after which some of those cuts had to be restored, and with we-spend-too-much Republicans now in complete control of that government, how is there "obviously more to do" in terms of spending. There may well be but if so, it would seem far from obvious.
Eliminate "entitlements", corporate subsidies, and all forms of social welfare. All of it. Zero it out.
SS and Medicare are two of the biggest items in the budget. SS is a pure Ponzi scheme and wastes huge amounts of taxpayer money. It should be eliminated! Medicare is a big cause for why healthcare costs so much. We need to drop Medicare as well. Government run programs are built with waste and fraud and the free market can do better if allowed to. But, bc power is derived from how much money a politician controls, and both are sacred Cows, they cannot be touched. If you think the Democrats and Socialists want government health care bc they are thinking of you, you are sadly mistaken. It’s all about power! They do not care one iota about you or your health. Just look what’s becoming Canada’s fix for rising healthcare costs and dwindling healthcare resources . . . Euthanasia! I don’t think they care for you at all.
A Ponzi scheme is mathematically guaranteed to collapse completely once new recruitment stops or demands for withdrawals exceed incoming cash. Social Security is designed as a perpetual, intergenerational transfer mechanism, with one generation funding the retirement cost of the previous one. If revenue falls short, the government can adjust tax rates, raise the taxable wage base, or alter benefit formulas through legislative action to restore solvency. This distinguishes it from a Ponzi scheme.
It is a Ponzi scheme. It is on the verge of collapse. The only reason it still exists is government force, requiring the people to participate. It is theft.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where money from new participants pays "returns" to earlier investors."
Aside from it not being technically "fraudulent" how is SS any different? It pays out on the monies received from those currently working. It started paying out before any money was actually received. They have to constantly change the rules to keep it alive!
To begin with, it not being fraudulent is a pretty significant distinction. If Ponzi schemes could actually work, they would be legal. The fact that eventually, inevitably, somebody gets (1) deceived and (2) ripped off is why they are instead illegal.
With Social Security having been enacted by our elected representatives, We the People knowingly undertook a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to accomplish the socially valued purpose of ensuring that America's old people can age with a certain level of dignity and economic security. Contrary to what happens with a Ponzi scheme, Social Security operates exactly as was intended, and we all benefit exactly as promised.
The rule changes "to keep it alive" is what is done with government programs to ensure that they are accomplishing their intended purpose to the greatest extent possible.
So, if it was perpetual why do they have to “Save” it periodically? Yes the Bernie Madoff Ponzi type schemes do collapse as you say, but only bc there is no investment to actually pay dividends and when people realize that it collapses. So, where is the investments in SS? The government is not allowed to invest. They can only take! Why do they have to make so many changes to cut payouts or delay them? Couldn’t Madoff had done that too? Surely he could, but that would have exposed it sooner, just like SS now. The main dfference is we have no choice! That why it stays on life support. Tell me, if you had put 12-13% of your income from the time you started working into the Stock Market, how much would you have today? Most everyone would be millionaires in their 50’s. The only way SS stays alive is we pour more of our hard earned money in it and it gives us less back. Those are numbers that are factual and real!
Especially for the wealthiest country on earth, ensuring that our elderly can age with a certain level of dignity and economic security is a worthy social goal. Accomplishing worthy social goals is one of the reasons we have this thing called government. Social Security accomplishes this worthy social goal in a rather ingenious way, basically with the generation that is working supplementing the retirement of the previous generation, the next doing the same for them and so on.
That said, I am completely open to any alternative you might suggest, provided that it enables all of our elderly to age with the same level of dignity and economic security as they can with Social Security.
Social Security is unconstitutional. It is a Ponzi scheme. It is theft. It is welfare. And the last time I looked at the Constitution, there was no authority granted to the federal government to ensure that the elderly can age with dignity.
I would be open to the argument that this was something to be undertaken by individual state governments. I would not be open to the richest nation on earth not taking care of its elderly.
Here's a clue, Glen. Socialism has barely been a blip on the political radar for most our our lifetimes. Income disparity reaches an unprecedented level and social mobility stagnates and what do you know? Younger Americans are now increasingly open to it.
In the long run, your "let them eat cake" attitude constitutes a much bigger danger to the Constitution than does a liberal reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause. History has shown that the alternative to a government that fails to meet the reasonable needs of its people is revolution.
The federal government was not founded to "meet the reasonable needs of its people". The federal government was founded to guarantee its citizens the rights of Englishmen, the inalienable rights provided to us by God.
A proper reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause is its application to establish West Point as an educational conduit for our military. But you would read the Necessary and Proper Clause as independent of any relationship to an enumerated power. You would read the Necessary and Proper Clause to permit the federal government to do whatever it thinks necessary and proper. In other words, you would read the Necessary and Proper Clause to permit the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants to do.
Our federal Constitution is incompatible with socialism. It does not permit it. It also does not permit taxing some to give to others. That is what charity is for. That is what families and friends are for. It is not a function of government at any level.
You are absolutely right!
Given all the hue and cry from Republicans about waste and fraud in government, with Republicans now in complete control of the federal government, and in particular after the DOGE cuts (some of which had to be restored), the notion that there is anything left to cut seems doubtful. Rather, it would seem that we as a nation are getting stuff from the federal government that the American people value, but for which the American people are simply not paying. It really is that simple.
So why don't we at least start paying for more of it? Not just billionaires or trillionaires. All of us. And I'm not talking about some draconian tax increase. Just repeal the last tax cut. That is, let us simply return to paying taxes at the levels that we used to, it perhaps now being pretty apparent that we needed that lost revenue all along.
There is no such thing as "complete control of the federal government" as we see every four years. Things take time to change, and even more time when the bureaucrats in the system want to slow them down. Add to that the folks on Congressional staffs that stuff the 3,000 page Omnibus bills with provisions that are never read, and you have a recipe for long, drawn out implementations of everything.
I might buy that had it not been for DOGE.
Bypassing the legislative process (illegally, I might add), Musk's people went anywhere and everywhere they wanted, firing bureaucrats left and right. So you can't blame the spending part of this fiscal year's projected $1.9 trillion deficit on them, or on Congress.
You can, however, blame this Republican Congress for cutting revenue, using budget reconciliation to bypass any Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Given DOGE (on the spending side) and budget reconciliation to cut taxes (on the revenue side), Republicans completely own our current budget deficit.
There was nothing "illegal" about DOGE. Bureaucrats work for the President. Ergo, the President can fire them. The problem remains spending--not tax cuts--and both parties are responsible, the Democrats more so than the Republicans.
It would take at least a 26 percent reduction in federal spending in order to balance the budget. Now, via DOGE, "draining the swamp" of fraud and corruption, or whatever, if you think you can trim ONE OUT OF EVERY FOUR dollars being spent, then for a nation nearing $40 trillion dollars in debt, reducing revenue might make sense.
If, on the other hand, you cannot somehow manage to reduce federal spending by 26 percent, reducing revenue with a tax cut was a knowing and deliberate decision to drive us further into debt. Democrats are worse than Republicans . . . . Whatever. Given (1) the magnitude of our debt and (2) how unhinged it would be to imagine it politically feasible to cut federal spending by 26 percent, a tax cut of any kind would have been damned irresponsible. That it mostly benefitted people who can afford to pay taxes is even worse.
And that's all Republican.
First, I have suggested cutting federal government spending by 67% (or more). It can and should be done. Because all federal transfer payments are unconstitutional, illegal, and immoral. Second, you seem to believe that the federal government has first dibs on Americans' money. Third, you seem to believe that the federal government needs money more than do American citizens. I submit that is far past the time when government did with less, and Americans keep more of their own hard earned money. Finally, your dig at people who pay taxes is inexcusable. It is inexcusable because the tax plan enacted (it was not a cut, it was keeping in place the tax rates) benefitted ALL taxpayers across the board. The very few tax cuts involved benefitted only the working class such as servers, construction workers, and police, as well as the elderly. It is also inexcusable because it evidences the sin of envy, the very cornerstone of Marxism. You seem to believe that successful people should have a larger portion of their income seized, because they "can afford" it. That is immoral.
Congress has been a contributor to this bypassing of the process through its own actions, for a very long time.
The Democrats when they were in control of Congress used the reconciliation process as well, so that doesn’t really makecthe point you are intending. Insisting that the DOGE process was illegal is also a very weak argument, as they brought the issues to the surface for the appropriate actions by the departments. Early on in the process the courts were involved and let the process continue. Do you really want to defend the multiple Continuing Resolutions orchestrated byboth parties over the past 2 decades? Do you really think it is politically or fiscally responsible to make massive changes to budget line items from one Congress to another? tThis is an issue that defies partisanship and goes to the central question of what does the Constitution say with regard to what is or is not an appropriate use of federal funds? And is running huge deficits each year in the national interest? Until we can get all members of Congress to debate and settle these questions, the current state of affairs will continue.
I think you miss my point. Democrats have been no more fiscally responsible than Republicans over the last 50 or so years. However, over most of the last 50 years, our debt was not approaching $40 trillion, interest payments on the debt did not exceed the defense budget and the cost of our borrowing was not beginning to inch higher.
My point is that with respect to our most recent departure from fiscal sanity, Republicans did that all on their own, knowing full well (after DOGE) that there was no way of cutting enough spending to offset their tax cuts. It was just a straight up raid on the treasury of a nation headed toward an inevitable fiscal reckoning.
I agree with your first paragraph. The debt has exploded in the last two decades, but the explosion in the first 5 years of this decade did the most damage, in part because the way the Congress sets 'baseline' spending for the next budget based on the ones before.. The belief that tax cuts always lead to less revenue is not born out by the facts over the long run, ad, according to the FED, tax revenue increased 2025. It's oviously too soon to see 2026, and it may in fact decrease a bit, but over the long haul revenue has increased as the economy has grown. see https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W006RC1Q027SBEA/
I have a better idea. How about we return to Constitutional government? You may have read about it in books. It was how the federal government operated prior to The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The Great Society, and Obamacare. Then we would not have to keep taxing the American people to death, we could eliminate our debt, we could eradicate socialism, and we would be operating within our Constitutional parameters.
Call it a return to constitutional government or whatever you want. However, if Republicans have proven incapable of cutting spending to the point of balancing the budget, even when completely in control of the federal government, more talk about cutting our way to a balanced budget is mere intellectual masturbation: it feels good ideologically, but it's never going to produce anything.
The Democrats are worse.
Not a good answer. Fire them all!
The go-to excuse for Republicans screwing things up.
Trump had to clean up Obama's mess. And now he is having to clean up Biden's mess. That is not Republicans screwing up. That is Republicans fixing what Democrats broke.
That might be true in many areas, but not with regard to the federal budget.
The average budget deficit under Obama was $826 billion. Trump cleaned up that mess by more than doubling it to an average of $1.93 trillion.
Biden brought the annual average down to $1.67 trillion. Trump has cleaned that up to the tune of $1.78 trillion last year, with a $2.1 trillion deficit projected for FY 2026.
Part of the answer is obvious - means test entitlements to achieve a smaller fiscal obligation.
And avoid socialized medicine as in "single payer".
This will be impossible with any degree of Democratic governance in Washington.
Any restoration of Democratic goverance will only worsen the problem.
But we all know this.
But does ther mainstream meida?
When a debt of 40 trillion is headed four 41 who notices where a billion here or a billion there goes, nobody is watching . We need free enterprise and capitalism not crony capitalism let the markets work fair trade with other nations and cut the government spending on pet projects along with spending by government federal state and local it’s gonna hurt but a little pain now is better than a death wish later
Erick, are you engaging in ragebaiting? It this a test?
There are of late a few voices here that I am frankly surprised would pay the privilege of humping Trump's leg or making just stupid hyperbole arguments to own someone.
Not a problem for me if they want to support your ministry and show, I just won't engage with them. I am just wondering if this is a quirky reality or a/b testing.
Umm, how is facing our current economic danger ragebaiting? Not sure I understand your comment. Would you be willing to help me understand your point?
From a different perspective, America lost its willingness to personally sacrifice to preserve our way of life when needed. WWII, for instance, came with rationing of particulars needed to supply the effort to defeat the Nazis and Japanese. Most Americans understood, lived with it, found ways to personally address their needs such as Victory Gardens. The war cost a lot, Americans supported the troops with personal sacrifices such as sugar and rubber as well as with tax dollars.
After that, Korea kind of shifted Americans' attitude - wasn't the same clear and present danger to the planet. Cold War proponents put it forth as "prevention" of spread of Communism. Then came Vietnam and the maelstrom of philosophies, opinions, politics and anti-war activities we all faced at a societal level.
IMO, what America did *not* do after WWII was ask Americans to sacrifice luxuries (and yes, sugar, while a staple, is a luxury for cooking) and comfort in the pursuit of a greater good (well, greater good in some minds anyway). America spent money, raised/lowered taxes, drafted young men, but Americans were not personally supportive of these efforts, nor were the material issues of WWII called for. National debt climbed, Americans just figured debt was the NIMBY answer - don't specifically ask me to do anything about it, just keep all that stuff out of my life.
Welfare emerged, has statistically proven devastating to those it was supposed to rescue, but would we ever consider reducing that? Not any more! Those are voters you're talking about. In our wealthy arrogance, we ignore the cost, figure we'll "grow our way out of it" and continue to create entitlement programs without considering whether, like a household economy, one thing may cost getting another thing, but the bucket only has this much water in it. America has lost resiliency, IMO. Individual economies realize we can't have it all...but at macroscopic gov't level, that reality gets lost in the millions and billions of dollar "details"...that add up to trillions.
So, as Erick asks, what will America forego to re-balance the budget? Answer comes back from Washington DC and state capitols - NOTHING, just spend away.
We will be made to care.
I don't want to let politicians off the hook, but the only viable path to make real cuts is to use the blueprint from military base closures in the 90s. We need a BRAC-style commission to cut the deficit. Only an independent commission with independent authority will have the capability to make serious cuts. Congress never will. They need a villain they can point to and scream at while the villain saves our country. It's not a great solution, but Congress is simply never going to fix it. They're more scared of losing re-election than saddling generations with impossible debt.
Great idea Allen. The morons yelling about simply cutting spending are just noise and gimmicks. Clearly if we were able to do that our debt wouldn't have gotten bad. If any R in congress had actually advocated for and held the line in the last budget process about making serious cuts to spending then Trump would have relentlessly called them out on camera, and in social media / recruited primary challengers and made sure that they were primaried out.
I like the idea of taking this out of the hand of congress directly, but leaving it there indirectly through their ability to appoint people on the commission. Could give them enough cover to actually get something done.
Another gimmick. JUST CUT SPENDING! And the problem is not just Congress. It is also the people. Voters want "free stuff". They want their Social Security, Medicare, student loans, Section 8 housing, etc. And they do not want to pay for anything. They want someone else to pay. Well, there is no one else. And there is no such thing as "free stuff"!
If all billionaires and multimillionaire were so patriotic they could donate to government and greatly reduce our deficit. Just a dream isn't it? Lol
It would not constitute a drop in the ocean if you confiscated all the wealth of all the billionaires. And there is nothing patriotic about allowing government to confiscate your money to give to someone else.
That onerous tariff regime has begun remitting collected funds to ... retailers.
Me, I'm now waiting for my DOGE bonus plus my tariff rebates.
And the retailers are not refunding the collected funds to their customers. Shocking!
That’s because they ate most of the tariffs, costing them the profits margins needed to pay employees and invest in new product development. Trump owes these companies a lot more than just the amounts of the tariffs to make them whole.
Now that is a lie. Prices are not rising for consumers if retailers are eating the tariffs. You yourself wrote that your company 1) passed on the costs of the tariffs; and, 2) kept your tariff refunds. So you are a liar and a thief. MOREOVER, if you are so concerned about the budget, why do you not support the tariffs as a way to close the deficit? You cannot have it both ways. Because you are not a serious person.
Tariffs as a way to close the deficit would be stupid. Besides being regressive in their ultimate effect, they distort the free market.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to tariffs for protectionist reasons where appropriate. However, for the purpose of raising revenue, they were abandoned more than a century ago for a reason.
There is very little free market in international trade. The United States could eliminate all its tariffs and we would still not enjoy free trade.
It’s a good thing you went into defending criminals, Glen, because you don’t know squat about business. We ate some of the tariffs and we passed some of them on — because we had to do so to stay in business. Interesting to see that you support taxing Americans with tariffs. I thought you were for cutting spending.
That is not what your previous posts claimed. Liar. And I know quite a bit about business. And I never said I supported tariffs, not once. Try reading. And I am for cutting spending. Especially since you Bush Republicans already spent so much.
Trump supported tariffs You supported Trump. Therefore, you supported tariffs.
In 1933, the federal government took gold coins out of circulation, taking the US off the gold standard domestically.
In 1965, the federal government took silver coins out of circulation and replaced them with cupronickel.
In 1971, the federal government took the US off the international gold standard.
The result was the ability to produce "fiat" currency based on nothing but trust in the government and market forces. Starting in the 1970's, this led to massive inflation.
In 1983, the federal government took copper pennies out of circulation and replaced them with zinc.
From 1940 to 1969, the price of a Milky Way candy bar remained constant at 5 cents (but they started getting smaller).
In 1976, I remember a Milky Way costing 19 cents at the corner gas station. By 1990, it had shot up to 45 cents.... today, it's $2.00
This is an increase of 2,800% over this 86-year timeframe.
If wages had kept up with inflation and productivity, everyone should be getting paid about 45% more than what they are now.
Every year, we pay more and get less.
Is it any wonder why Millennials/Gen-Z can't afford anything and are so pissed? Hell, Gen-X barely got any left-over scraps.
How does a civilization collapse?
1) Economy goes to crap... we've got that.
2) Government becomes corrupt and self-serving... we've got that.
3) Foreigners enter the country in large numbers, don't assimilate and start diluting the established culture... we've got that.
4) The climate stops cooperating.... This is the wildcard. As long as the lights turn on, there's cold beer in the refrigerator and a ball game on TV, most people will cope. But the moment food production collapses.... look out. It will all go to pot faster than most can imagine..
1-3 are self inflicted.
It’s been the same pattern going back to antiquity.... the Bronze Age Collapse, Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, Hittites, Canaanites, Mycenaean, Babylon, Persia, Sumerians, Egypt, Han Dynasty China, Ming Dynasty China, Greece, Carthage, Rome, Olmec, Maya, Kuhmer, Spain, France, Qing Dynasty China, Japan, Ottoman, etc. No one is immune.
So why does it keep happening?
The main reason is actually pretty simple.
The warning signs are always visible, yet usually ignored by those in power. Every civilization had people inside it who saw what was happening, and were sounding the alarm, but the people in power ignored those warnings. They always put their own interests ahead of the good of the civilization.
They become victims of something known as “Normalcy Bias”….. Meaning, they are used to living their lives a certain way, and believe it will always be that way. The thought of their lifestyle suddenly changing is unthinkable; it’s not on the radar for the vast majority of the people.
Something about history repeating itself over and over again.
You've hit a nerve with this one, Erick, I think. Everyone has suggestions on what we need to cut, but unfortunately, no one in DC will do any of it. It's like the idea that all the elected officials in DC are worthless and need to be tossed out....except my guy. Just like they rallied around repealing the ACA for a decade, and then didn't, they will talk a good game about cutting things...and then won't.
So, here's my question to you, Erick, and I'd really like to know a thoughtful, detailed answer; What happens to America if our politicians vapor lock and cut absolutely zero, ever and we just keep rolling along as we are?
I don't mean what happens according to all the internet keyboard warriors and their ideas. I mean, you talk to these people, and their people, and the people who feed them ideas all the time. What do the intelligencia think actually happens?
I, personally would kick every single one of them out, even the few who might do what is right, and start over. Because they all have the taint of do nothing but benefit themselves.
I think our first step in the right direction would be to repeal the 17th amendment. Direct election of senators unbalanced the structure of our country as it was envisioned by the Founders. That weakened the power of the semi-sovereign states.
If there was one thing I change which would be permanent, repealing the 17A is it.
Ossoff and Warnock definitely need to be tossed out. 😃
You would have had your chance at Ossoff in November. But alas, the Republican nominee is endorsed by Trump — otherwise known as the kiss of death.
Only if petulant voters like you refuse to vote for Collins, because you did not get your way. Like all Bush Republicans.
Nominate honest Republicans and they’ll always get my vote.
Stop lying.
You must have meant to send this to Trump. It would be good advice for him.
True - I voted for Dooley.
Well now it is your responsibility to vote for Collins. Otherwise, Ossoff stays in office.
I’ll vote for Collins over Ossoff
It would be really nice to tell the Federal Reserve Bank to get bent and wipe out the debt with stroke of a pen... of course, that would cause mass chaos...
If you're familiar with Argentina's history, you can see what would happen because they've done that many times. It's never worked and, as you point out, has been quite destructive to their country.
Yep... I know all about what Argentina has bene through over the last 130 years. It is a nice fantasy to tell the FED to pound sand.... but not practical, I know.
In 1940, Argentina's navy was 8th-most powerful in the world.... imagine that.
First stop all spending for illegal aliens
The most expensive part of illegal aliens is deporting them.
Maybe, but deportation is at least a one time cost and probably pays for itself over time. And I have no source, I just came up with it myself.
I don’t know. Sure made my farm labor a lot more expensive.
So you want illegal aliens to work your farm? You hire criminals? You flout the law? Interesting. More indicia that you are a Democrat.
Nah, just seeing if you’d bite, Glen. And you did. I am the only labor on my farm, plus a few hunt club members. But I do sort of picture you still having a few slaves on the old Virginia plantation.
I get it. I design and build electric substations and all our construction contractors have imported workers. The Guatemalans and Hondurans are great workers, but I believe most of them are on work visa programs. If we could get rid of the bad hombres but let the good guys stay and contribute. Wishful thinking, I know.
No. Not at all.
Source?
You made the claim. What is your source? Hypocrite.